Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Federal Sector
  3. Selected Noteworthy Federal Sector Appellate Decisions

Selected Noteworthy Federal Sector Appellate Decisions

Many noteworthy federal appellate decisions are frequently used as a part of the Commission's outreach and training efforts. To help the public identify those decisions, the Commission has decided to assign randomly generated first names and initials, along with a brief summary of the decisions, to the cases. We will update the list periodically with the most recently issued decisions.

Case Caption

Summary

Attorney's Fees

 

Rick G. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0720180009 (Apr. 26, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720180009.pdf

Administrative Judge properly determined that, where Complainant (through a retainer agreement) was being provided legal services at a reduced rate based on public-interest-minded reasons, the proper hourly rate was the prevailing rate at the time of the fee petition rather than the historical rate at the time the work was performed.

Ramon L. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161017 (May 29, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120161017.txt

The Administrative Judge properly reduced Complainant's attorney's fees and costs by 40 percent where Complainant prevailed on only one of his five retaliation claims, the successful claim was not so inextricably intertwined with the unsuccessful claims that Complainant would be entitled to an award of full attorney's fees, the case did not present novel issues, and the fee petition contained numerous instances that might be considered excessive, duplicative, or unreasonable time expended.

Lauralee C. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0720150002 (Sept. 25, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720150002.txt

Where there was no basis to support the Administrative Judge's award of $9,122.50 more than the requested $122,150.00 in attorney's fees, the appellate decision adjusted the award to reflect the actual amount claimed in the fee petitions.

Sang G. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120151360 (July 28, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120151360.txt

A 75 percent reduction of attorney's fees was unwarranted where Complainant's unsuccessful claims were not distinctly different from his successful claims. Although Complainant prevailed on only two of his thirteen claims, his hostile work environment claim was not fractionable from his successful claims because they arose out of a common core of facts which took place during his approximately nine months of employment.

Class Complaints

 

Velva B. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120182505 (Nov. 7, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120182505.pdf

Agency's final decisions on disputed claims for individual relief were premature because an Administrative Judge retains jurisdiction and is responsible for resolving disputed claims for individual relief.

Eura B. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161851 (June 15, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120161851.txt

The Administrative Judge's denial of class certification was appropriate where the putative class agent failed to establish that the class met the commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements. Complainant did nothing more than raise “broad, across-the-board allegations of discriminatory policies and practices covering a variety of personnel processes,” she was unable to establish that each allegation happened to every class member, and counsel’s actions raised concerns that the class’s interests would not be protected.

Velva B. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal Nos. 0720160006 and 0720160007 (Sept. 25, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720160006.0720160007.txt

Expecting every potential class member to undertake the individualized inquiry that the Rehabilitation Act requires during the liability phase is impractical and unworkable; it is more efficient and effective to require prospective class members to prove that they are qualified individuals with disabilities during the remedies phase of the proceeding, because that is where proof of one’s status as a qualified individual with a disability under the Rehabilitation Act naturally aligns with proof of one’s membership in a class.

Compensatory Damages

 

Pamula W. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120171387 (May 2, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120171387.pdf

Agency's liability for compensatory damages extended back to the beginning of the sexual harassment, not the date that management became aware of it and failed to take prompt remedial action.

Lois G. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720170034 (June 15, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720170034.txt

Compensatory damages are not available in retaliation complaints arising solely out of prior EEO activity related to the ADEA.

Brendon L. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160256 (Apr. 20, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120160256.txt

The Administrative Judge properly awarded Complainant $3,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages where Complainant offered corroborative testimony from his family, friends, and colleagues; the AJ found that Complainant's testimony was not credible in some respects but was credible with respect to how the discrimination affected his family and work life; and the amount awarded was consistent with amounts awarded under similar circumstances.

Lauralee C. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0720150002 (Sept. 25, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720150002.txt

The appellate decision affirmed an Administrative Judge's award of $200,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages and $223,116.35 in pecuniary compensatory damages. The AJ took account of several factors that limited Complainant’s non-pecuniary damages award, found that the Agency was not the sole cause of Complainant’s emotional and psychological harm, and limited the award of pecuniary damages to the amounts contained in "legitimate receipts."

Sang G. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120151360 (July 28, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120151360.txt

Complainant was entitled to an award of $25,000.00 in nonpecuniary compensatory damages where he demonstrated that, because of the Agency's conduct, he endured emotional distress which affected not only him but his family relationships and that, due to his inability to gain employment, his depression worsened and he was unable to afford healthcare for treatment.

Lara G. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520130618 (June 9, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0520130618.txt

When determining an award of non-pecuniary compensatory damages, the Commission may consider the present-day value of comparable awards.

Complaint Processing

 

Annalee D. v. General Services Administration, EEOC Request No. 2019000778 (Nov. 27, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/2019000778.pdf

Agency defense counsel may assist agency management officials and witnesses in the preparation of their affidavits during the investigative stage but may not instruct officials to make statements that are untrue or make changes to any affidavit without the affiant's approval of such changes; agency defense counsel also may assist agencies in informal resolution talks during the counseling stage so long as counsel suggests, but does not dictate, settlement terms.

Irina T. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120181844 (Sept. 10, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120181844.pdf

Agency's final order adopting Administrative Judge's decision vacated, and case remanded to Agency for reissuance of final order, where Complainant did not receive the AJ's decision and therefore was unable to argue with specificity about the AJ's findings and conclusions that the Agency implemented.

Pamela W. v. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 2019003663 (Aug. 22, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/2019003663.pdf

Agency erroneously dismissed complaint for failure to cooperate; the name of the alleged discriminating official and the time frame during which the alleged discrimination occurred constituted sufficient information for the Agency to complete its investigation without an affidavit from Complainant.

Dismissals

 

Mae P. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Appeal No. 0120170218 (Dec. 21, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120170218.txt

The Agency erred in issuing a final action purporting to dismiss Complainant's complaint where the 15-day regulatory time frame to file a formal complaint had long since elapsed and no formal complaint had been filed.

Determinations on the Merits

 

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

 

Gabriele G. v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0720180015 (Nov. 15, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720180015.pdf

Substantial evidence supported the Administrative Judge's finding that the Agency subjected Complainant to a hostile work environment based on age and in reprisal for protected EEO activity when she was issued a lowered performance evaluation, subjected to false allegations, and subjected to unfair terms and conditions of employment.

Alline B. v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0120162182 (Dec. 8, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120162182.txt

Complainant established a prima facie case of age discrimination, and Agency did not meet its burden of production to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting Complainant for a supervisory position; stating that a complainant was not selected because she received a lower score than the selectees does not meet an agency’s burden of production, unless the agency explains the specific reasoning for the score.

Under the Equal Pay Act

 

Margeret M. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120170362 (Feb. 21, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120170362.pdf

Agency did not meet its burden to show that the disparity between Complainant's pay and that of two male general surgeons was based on a factor other than sex where Agency provided only vague statements to justify the pay differential and there was a lack of information reflecting how the salaries of Complainant and the comparators were set.

Jenna P. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120180917 (Oct. 17, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120180917.pdf

Substantial evidence supported Administrative Judge's determination that Complainant, who held a GS-14 position, did not establish that her work was substantially equal to that of GS-15 male employees; Complainant did not have the same responsibilities as her comparators because she was not a supervisor, did not have budget authority, did not speak for the Agency the way higher-level employees did, and did not have the technical expertise of higher-level employees.

Stefan C. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120132211 (Apr. 24, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120132211.txt

Complainant did not establish an Equal Pay Act violation where he and his female comparator performed substantially different jobs in two different locations, they were supervised under different management chains, the female comparator used more complex technology, and she had been paid at a higher level prior to receiving a lateral transfer.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act

 

Heidi B. v. Dep't of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 0120171750 (Feb. 28, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120171750.pdf

Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of failure to accommodate her pregnancy-related condition because the preponderance of the evidence in the record established that the Agency provided Complainant with an appropriate space other than a restroom to use to express breastmilk; there was no evidence that Complainant followed up with her supervisor or anyone else to notify the Agency that the storage room was not an effective accommodation after it was cleaned, and the supervisor permitted Complainant to use vacant conference rooms or offices instead of the storage room.

Reita M. v. Agency for International Development, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161608 (July 17, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120161608.txt

The Agency discriminated against Complainant based on sex when, shortly after she informed her supervisor of her pregnancy, he began to scrutinize her activities while she teleworked and to make cumbersome requests.

Under the Rehabilitation Act

 

Alonzo N. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120181502 (Sept. 17, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120181502.pdf

Agency denied Complainant a reasonable accommodation for his hearing disability when it did not provide a sign language interpreter during training and safety meetings; where the physical safety of employees in the workplace is the subject of discussion, it is uniquely pressing for Complainant to have access to the information being conveyed.

Joshua F. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120181309 (Aug. 30, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120181309.pdf

The Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of disability (perceived color perception deficiency) when it rescinded a tentative offer of employment for a motor vehicle operator position; the Agency did not perform an individualized assessment of whether Complainant could perform the essential functions of the position without posing a direct threat to himself or others.

Alonzo N. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120180739 (June 21, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120180739.pdf

Agency did not show that employment of Complainant in Deportation Officer position would pose a direct threat where Medical Review Board made a blanket determination that Complainant’s medication created a potential risk of injury while performing Deportation Officer’s duties, but the Board ignored his work history in a similarly strenuous law enforcement position and discounted the opinion of his cardiologist.

Irina T. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120180568 (Apr. 3, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120180568.pdf

Agency discriminated against Complainant based on disability when it denied her request for leave without pay and charged her with being absent without leave; agencies may need to modify general leave policies when providing reasonable accommodations.

Patricia W. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120172637 (Mar. 26, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120172637.pdf

Agency violated the Rehabilitation Act when it did not provide Complainant with adequate equipment and unreasonably delayed the provision of assistive technology, software, and training to support her accommodation of full-time telework; performance counseling memorandum and placement on performance improvement plan for performance issues directly resulted from Agency's failure to provide Complainant with adequate technologies required to telework effectively.

Ruben T. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120171405 (Mar. 22, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120171405.pdf

The Agency discriminated against Complainant based on his disability when it failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation in a timely manner and when it delayed his promotion. Although the Agency argued that there were "security reasons" for delaying the accommodation, it did not provide any details describing the concerns, it "lost track" of his request for approximately five months, and it failed to respond adequately to his request for a list of Agency-approved software.

Rochelle F. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120171406 (Mar. 5, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120171406.pdf

The Agency, which first denied Complainant's request for an ergonomically correct chair and then provided her with a chair that did not fit her needs, denied Complainant a reasonable accommodation; the Agency should have worked with Complainant to conduct an individualized ergonomic assessment that would have determined her specific needs.

Carroll R. v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120170064 (Feb. 8, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120170064.pdf

Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of disability when his managers did not allow him to take a polygraph examination, which was required for his position, where there was no reason to believe that his multiple sclerosis and medication would affect the validity of the polygraph result.

Elden R. v. Dep't of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122672 (Feb. 24, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120122672.txt

Agency did not establish that its "sit and reach" requirement for a Wildlife Refuge Specialist position was job related and consistent with business necessity where no Agency witness was able to articulate how the ability to reach over one's toes while sitting down with legs outstretched was related to any of the functions of the position.

Bill A. v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120131989 (Oct. 26, 2016)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120131989.txt

As part of the federal-sector investigative process, an investigator must obtain information about vacancies from an agency and should give a complainant the opportunity to explain whether she or he can perform the essential functions of the vacant positions with or without reasonable accommodation.

Latarsha A. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120123215 and 0120131079 (Mar. 15, 2016)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120123215.txt

Requiring Complainant to seek assistance in opening doors from security guards and coworkers did not provide her with an effective accommodation; Agency's eventual installation of automatic doors demonstrated that this accommodation was not an undue hardship.

Under Title VII

 

Heidi B. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120182601 (Nov. 8, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120182601.pdf

The Agency did not make a good-faith effort to accommodate Complainant's request not to work on Sundays where supervisor did not explore any type of accommodation and there was no indication whether it would be feasible to ask other employees to volunteer to work on Sundays.

Sharon M. v. Dep't of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120180192 (Sept. 25, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120180192.pdf

Agency did not take prompt corrective action, and therefore did not meet its affirmative defense to harassment, when it took six months to engage in an internal investigation and issue a proposed 30-day suspension to the coworker who had sent Complainant a threatening email containing a racial slur.

Jess P. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120132186 (Sept. 17, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120132186.pdf

The Agency did not overcome Complainant's prima facie case of sex discrimination where the Agency explained the general mechanics of the selection process for a Lead Transportation Security Officer position but did not provide a specific, individualized explanation for why Complainant was not chosen for the position.

Stanton S. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120170582 (Apr. 16, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120170582.pdf

Complainant, the only African-American plumber at the facility where he worked, was subjected to a hostile work environment based on race when coworkers tampered with his toolbox and left notes in it saying that African Americans did not have the skill sets to be plumbers, attempted to restrain him to a chair with a metal clamp, referred to him as a goat, and duct-taped him to a chair; the Agency was liable for the racial harassment because it did not take immediate and appropriate corrective action after Complainant reported the first, toolbox incident.

Colby S. v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120172604 (Apr. 2, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120172604.pdf

Assuming that Complainant established that he was subjected to sexual harassment because of his sex/sexual orientation, the decision found that the Agency was not liable for the alleged harassment because management began an investigation immediately after Complainant reported a coworker's comments, an EEO Counselor spoke to employees about EEO guidelines at a meeting, a Power Point on sexual harassment was presented at a group meeting, an Agency official spoke to the group about the matter, the union president was made available for counseling, the coworker received a letter of reprimand regarding her comments, and there was no evidence that the coworker made any comments about Complainant's sexual orientation after he reported the matter to management.

Sol W. v. Dep't of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 0720180018 (Aug. 15, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720180018.txt

Substantial evidence supported Administrative Judge's determination that the Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of race when it terminated his employment as a sales store checker during his probationary period; the AJ found Complainant to be credible, the Agency's stated reason (that Complainant had an altercation with a bagger) was not believable, the evidence showed that those terminated during their probationary period were predominantly African-Americans, and a Caucasian employee who also had an altercation with the bagger did not receive any disciplinary action.

Ross R. v. Dept of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120162491 (July 25, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120162491.pdf

Substantial evidence supported Administrative Judge's determination that Complainant did not show that he personally was subjected to conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment based on race where Complainant did not witness most of the racially insensitive incidents alleged, he learned of the conduct second or third hand, he did not work at the office when the offensive conduct occurred, and the offensive behavior was not directed toward him; agreeing with the AJ's finding that the office where the conduct occurred was rife with offensive and racially hostile behavior, and given that substantial evidence established that other African-American employees were subjected to race-based conduct, the decision ordered the Agency to conduct training, to consider disciplining several identified Agency employees, and to post a notice.

Felisha A. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120162314 (June 5, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120162314.txt

Stating that a complainant was not selected for a supervisory position because she received a lower score than the selectees does not meet an agency’s burden of production, unless the agency explains the specific reasoning for the scores; the assertion that a complainant ranked lower than the selectees is meaningless without evidence of the specific scores, the manner in which the scores were derived, and the pertinence of the scores to the position at issue.

Tanya P. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160846 (Apr. 30, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120160846.txt

Agency discriminated against Complainant based on sex when it gave her a light-duty assignment that changed her starting time but allowed four male comparators who performed light-duty work to retain their normal starting times; Complainant and the comparators were substantially similar in all relevant aspects: they were Mail Handlers who worked on the same tour at the same facility and reported to the same supervisor.

Minda W. v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120162040 (Apr. 24, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120162040.txt

Supervisor's instruction that Complainant and her subordinates not speak Tagalog when discussing work topics was an English-only rule that was not justified by business necessity because there was no evidence that the rule was necessary for the safe or efficient operation of the Agency.

Margaret M. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120151790 (Jan. 11, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120151790.pdf

Removing Complainant from the workplace by placing her on administrative leave did not insulate the Agency from liability for sexual harassment; reassigning the person targeted for harassment is not appropriate corrective action.

Mac O. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120152431 (Nov. 29, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120152431.pdf

Agency did not show that allowing Complainant to take Saturdays off for religious observances would have resulted in an undue hardship where Agency asserted that it could not do so without incurring overtime costs but made no effort to look into the possibility of schedule swaps or any other type of accommodation.

Genny L. v. Dep't of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122795 (Feb. 23, 2016)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120122795.txt

Agency discriminated against Complainant on the basis of national origin when her supervisor prohibited her from interacting with a contractor on the ground that she had a language barrier with the contractor; Agency did not identify any specific communications that the contractor could not understand or any specific problems with Complainant's language skills, and there was no evidence that anyone could not understand Complainant.

Under Multiple Bases

 

Marquis K. v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0720180014 (May 14, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720180014.pdf

Substantial evidence supported Administrative Judge's finding that Agency discriminated against Complainant on the bases of race (African American) and sex (male) when it terminated his employment for alleged insubordination and misconduct; AJ found that evidence substantiated Complainant's perception that supervisor regarded him as a "big, Black man" and racially stereotyped his behavior as aggressive and intimidating.

Thomasina B. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120173008 (Feb. 27, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120173008.pdf

Agency discriminated against Complainant on the bases of race and sex when her supervisor gave her a negative job reference that included unfounded critical statements about Complainant; evidence supported Complainant's assertion that supervisor did not want Complainant, a Hispanic woman, potentially to serve as the supervisor's superior.

Retaliation

 

Terisa B. v. Dep't of Defense, EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120180570, 0120181692, and 2019002121 (Sept. 4, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120180570.pdf

Supervisor engaged in per se reprisal when he told Complainant that her complaints about EEO issues were causing him extra work and stress, threatened her with termination, and labeled her as someone who does not work well with others because of her oral complaints about co-workers.

Leora R. v. Dep't of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 0120180736 (Aug. 30. 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120180736.pdf

Agency subjected Complainant to a retaliatory hostile work environment when, during a conversation in which Complainant asked her supervisor to investigate her allegations of race discrimination, the supervisor reminded Complainant that she was still in a probationary status, denied that the Agency was discriminating, told Complainant "to calm down on that," and stated that Complainant's co-workers might file complaints against her because they found her claims of race discrimination offensive.

Elbert H. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120170676 (Oct. 31, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120170676.pdf

Agency engaged in per se reprisal when, at the direction of the attorney representing the Agency in Complainant’s prior EEO complaint, it sent him correspondence requesting the name of his treating physician, asked him to sign a medical release, and proposed conducting a fitness-for-duty examination; the attorney instigated the actions based on statements that Complainant made in the prior EEO proceeding.

Eleni M. v. Dep't of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0720160021 (July 25, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720160021.txt

Substantial evidence supported the Administrative Judge's determination that the Agency retaliated against Complainant for protected EEO activity when it issued her a Letter of Counseling. The Agency articulated a legitimate reason for disciplining Complainant, but it did not explain why other employees who engaged in similar behavior were not disciplined.

Jazmine F. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120162132 (June 22, 2018)

 

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120162132.txt

The Agency subjected Complainant to adverse treatment based on protected EEO activity when the office director informed Complainant's detail supervisor that Complainant was engaged in settlement discussions for an EEO complaint.

Mindy O. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0720150010 (Sept. 2, 2016)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720150010.txt

The Agency subjected Complainant to per se reprisal when a manager made statements during a staff meeting that were intended to discourage employees from engaging in protected EEO activity.

Jurisdiction

 
   

Mixed Motive

 
   

Official Time

 

Sang G. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120170604 (Mar. 20, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120170604.pdf

Claim regarding the denial of official time remanded to Agency for investigation; although Agency did not need to investigate whether the denial was discriminatory, it should have determined whether the denial was justified.

Remedies

 

Gabriele G. v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0720180015 (Nov. 15, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720180015.pdf

The appellate decision modified an Administrative Judge's order requiring the Agency to post a notice to employees at facilities other than where the discriminatory conduct occurred because the AJ did not provide a justification for ordering the wider distribution.

Sherrill S. v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Petition No. 2019001468 (June 5, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/2019001468.pdf

Although Petitioner was entitled to back pay as a component of make-whole relief, she was not entitled to a sum greater than what she would have earned but for her constructive discharge; because her earnings while in active-duty military service between the time of her constructive discharge and her reinstatement exceeded her gross civilian back pay, Petitioner was not entitled to receive back pay.

Kristofer D. v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0720170019 (Aug. 3, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720170019.txt

Administrative Judge's remedial order requiring Agency to develop and adopt policies and procedures concerning the recruitment and selection of employees for non-competitive, temporary positions and to ensure equal opportunity and consideration in the selection process was appropriate.

Bernardo C. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120150213 (Feb. 16, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120150213.txt

Complainant was not entitled to reinstatement as part of make-whole relief or consolidation of his constructive-discharge claim because the record contained substantial evidence that Complainant resigned his position due to fear of termination as a result of matters that were unrelated to the Agency’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Sanctions

 

Irvin M. v. Dep't of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120170498 (Apr. 25, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120170498.pdf

Complainant's request for default judgment granted where Agency did not issue its final decision until 210 days after Administrative Judge's order remanding the complaint to Agency for a final decision and Agency provided no explanation for its significant delay.

Jordon S. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120171870 (Mar. 20, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120171870.pdf

Agency, which provided no explanation for the more-than-one-year delay in its issuance of the final decision, was ordered to post a notice at its Complaint Adjudication Office regarding its failure to comply with the Commission's regulatory timeframes and orders and to provide training to its EEO personnel.

Harriet M. v. Dep't of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 0120141484 (Jan. 30, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120141484.txt

Complainant's request for default judgment granted where Agency began its investigation only after Complainant requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge and provided no explanation for its failure to investigate complaint in a timely manner; because the record did not establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, a claim of harassment, or a prima facie case of compensation discrimination, Complainant was not entitled to individual relief.

Arnoldo P. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120123216 (Jan. 8, 2016)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120123216.txt

Administrative Judge properly sanctioned Complainant, by cancelling the hearing and remanding the complaint to the Agency for a final decision, when Complainant failed to abide by the AJ's order to remove video depositions of management officials from YouTube and to provide written confirmation that he had done so.

Settlement Agreements

 

Deandre C. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Appeal No. 0120182681 (Dec. 27, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120182681.pdf

The Commission found that the Agency complied with the terms of a settlement agreement, including the provision of accepting a letter of resignation from Complainant.

Stating a Claim

 

Brenton W. v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120182156 (Sept. 12, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120182156.txt

Agency, which conceded that it jointly employed Complainant with his staffing firm, should not have dismissed complaint for failure to state a claim; Agency's contention that it did not know of the alleged harassing behavior of staffing firm employees went to the merits of the complaint, which must be investigated.

Darin B. v. Office of Personnel Management, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161068 (Mar. 6, 2017)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120161068.txt

A transgender male complainant stated a cognizable claim of sex discrimination when he alleged that his Federal Employee Health Benefits insurance plan denied pre-authorization for nipple-areola reconstruction; the failure to use or exhaust the process for Agency review of an insurance carrier's decision does not preclude an employee from asserting a viable claim in the EEO process.

Serita B. v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120150846 (Nov. 10, 2016)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120150846.txt

An agency will qualify as a joint employer if it has the right to control the means and manner of the individual's work, regardless of whether the individual is paid by an outside organization or is on the federal payroll.

Summary Judgment

 
   

Timeliness

 

Keri C. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 2019002318 (Apr. 26, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/2019002318.pdf

Agency properly dismissed complaint as untimely filed where Agency notified Complainant of applicable filing deadline and proper address to file her complaint with the Agency but Complainant nonetheless sent the complaint to the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations.

Buck S. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120180137 (Apr. 3, 2019)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120180137.pdf

Complainant raised his reasonable-accommodation claim in a timely manner; the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is ongoing and, at the time that he contacted the EEO Counselor, Complaint was alleging that the Agency remained unwilling to provide him with reasonable accommodation.

Ashlee P. v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 0720180016 (Dec. 11, 2018)

https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0720180016.pdf

Agency's appeal of Administrative Judge's decision was untimely filed where Agency filed the appeal more than 45 days (including a five-day presumption of receipt) after issuance of the decision; Agency did not show that it received the decision beyond the presumed five days; Agency failed to seek waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling; and Agency failed to offer adequate justification for an extension of the applicable time period.